Monthly Archives: January 2016

Post navigation

In honor of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a declaration that the “Nakba was a terrible tragedy for the Palestinian Arabs.” The New York Times, BBC and various media outlets proclaimed in their headlines that Netanyahu had turned a corner from some of his prior comments belittling the “Nakba,” the term that Arabs use to describe their “disaster” when Arabs left their homes and were unable to return after the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.

Netanyahu continued about the Nakba that “Israelis understand the pain of being expelled from their homes. Jews were ethnically cleansed from their holiest city, Jerusalem, by Jordanian Arabs. Jews were evicted from their second holiest city, Hebron, after Arabs massacred them in 1929. And the Jewish people were evicted from their ancient homeland in Judea and Samaria, and barred from re-entry, by the Jordanians in 1949. Is there a people on the planet that understands the pain of losing their homes more than the Jewish people? Jews have been targeted for death and eviction by Arabs for a century.”

When Netanyahu was asked to comment not only about evictions, but about being banned from returning to their properties, Netanyahu reviewed how Palestinian Arabs effectively convinced the British to block Jewish immigration to Palestine at the beginning of the Holocaust in 1939, causing hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children in Europe to perish. “We Jews understand being excluded very well.”

The comments acknowledging the Nakba were a sharp reversal from Netanyahu’s doctoral study in which he detailed many questions surrounding both the numbers and source of the Nakba. His study concluded that the Arabs in Palestine conspired with the major global parties to funnel billions of dollars in perpetuity to Palestinian Arabs via the United Nations.

Netanyahu’s thesis reviewed the many secret meetings between Arab leaders and the French, British, Americans and Russians that would set the Arabs as the aggrieved party by the UN. The Arab plan pushed the UN to endorse the partition plan of 1947, which the Palestinians would then publicly reject. The UN would then create a unique stand-alone agency, UNRWA, designed to exist forever, as a means of transferring billions of dollars to Palestinian Arabs.

As part of the Arab plan, the United Nations inflated the number of Arab refugees from the 1948 war to 711,000 from the actual 100,000 figure. By inflating the number of refugees, the UN was able to funnel even greater sums of money to Palestinians.

The Arab plan had the further benefit of giving the entire Arab world a scapegoat for their corrupt regimes.

As it turned out, the joint Arab- global powers’ plan worked almost perfectly, aside from a few unexpected results. The UN did not realize that the Arab leadership would ultimately double-cross the UN and steal most of the funds promised to the Palestinian people; and the corrupt financial structure ultimately made Palestinian Arab leadership completely incapable of governing.

The NY Times and BBC did not review the contents of Netanyahu’s doctoral thesis in their articles. However, the Times did have a lead editorial noting Netanyahu as “a man of empathy, and a true moderate who is Abbas’s best chance for a peace partner.”

On October 1, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. He rebuked the governments in the room for their indifference to Iran’s call for destruction of the Jewish State. He said that “Iran’srulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence.” He then paused for 45 uncomfortable seconds, so that the people in the room could better understand how Israel is outraged by the lack of condemnation from governments around the world, against the outrageous comments from Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations
October 2015

The United States is home to over 5 million Jews, the largest number of Jews after the State of Israel. For much of Israel’s existence, the United States has been the country’s main ally.

However, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, the United States has softened its support for Israel, such as removing pro-Israel positions in the Democratic platform (the US will never deal with Hamas; future borders of Israel will NOT follow the 1949 Armistice Lines; Palestinian “refugees” would NOT settle in Israel; Jerusalem is the capital of Israel). Still, the US government supported Israel’s right to defend itself, even while the US distanced itself from Israel, by not actively supporting Israel in combatting Palestinian terror.

In January 2016, the US – once again – had the opportunity to address the incessant nihilistic death chants from Palestinian Arabs. Not just the incitement from the acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and others in the PA government, but in established PA laws. The decades-old PA law calls for the death penalty for any Arab that sells land to a Jew. While the New York Times refused to print such basic facts for years, the arrest of radical left-wing “activist” Ezra Nawi put the law in plain public sight for everyone to see: the PA not only demands a Jew-free state (an anti-Semitic demand which Obama supports), but will kill to make sure that such anti-Semitic demands are met.

How did the US respond?

US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro
January 2016

Dan Shapiro, the US Ambassador to Israel spoke at an Israeli conference while Israelis buried a young mother who was stabbed and killed by a Palestinian Arab in an unprovoked attack. During his comments Shapiro attacked the Israeli government’s position of allowing Jews to build and buy homes east of the Green Line (EGL), and stated that that Israel was too lax in prosecuting crimes that Israelis commit against Palestinian Arabs.

Shapiro did not comment on the Palestinian law that calls for the death penalty for Arabs that sell land to Jews. He said nothing about Israel’s arrest of Ezra Nawi who helped the PA catch Palestinian Arabs who sold homes to Jews, for the PA to torture.

When John Kirby of the State Department was asked to comment about Shapiro’s statements, Kirby defended Shapiro as repeating the US’s position on Israeli settlements. He remained mum on Palestinian law that called for the death penalty on those that sell land to Jews.

The United States added a silent echo to the ugly mute chorus. No condemnation for those who call for the destruction of Israel. For the killing of Jews. For the killing of those that work with Jews.

Brothers Grimm tell the tale of “Little Red Riding Hood” that went to visit her grandmother in the woods. On her trip she met a lone wolf, but she wasn’t afraid of it. She spoke to the wolf and picked flowers nearby and effectively led the wolf to not only devour herself, but her grandmother as well. After a huntsman saw what the wolf had done, he killed the wolf and managed to save the grandmother and little Red Riding Hood.

A little while later, another wolf came to kill the two women in the grandmother’s cabin, but this time, the women were able to hold off the second lone wolf. When this wolf continued to pursue the women, it failed and died of its own carelessness.

Lone Terrorists

On January 25, 2016, a young Israeli woman named Shlomit Krigman, went home to visit her grandmother in Beit Horon, a small town along the main road that connects Modi’in and Jerusalem. She was unlucky enough to encounter two Palestinian men with knives who were seeking Israeli Jews to kill. They stabbed and killed Shlomit, and then stabbed a 58-year old woman on the street before the two were shot and killed by a security guard.

Shlomit Krigman, killed by Palestinian men while going to visit her grandparentsJanuary 2016

The latest round of attacks by Palestinian Arabs has been called by some the “Stabbing Intifada” being carried out by “lone wolves.” The term “lone wolf” is meant to describe people that are acting without the direction of central leadership, as happened under the direction of Yasser Arafat (fungus be upon him) in earlier intifadas which claimed thousands of lives. It also is meant to draw a distinction from the various wars that Hamas launched against Israel over the past eight years.

The United Nations described these Arabs as “desperate” about their situation for not having an independent Palestinian state. The Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki Moon and acting President of the Palestinian Authority stress that these terrorists are not barbaric creatures, but everyday people who were simply frustrated by their lack of autonomy.

The Wall Street Journal posted an analysis of lone wolf terrorists after the attacks in Sydney, Australia in December 2014 called “Is it Possible to Spot the Next Lone Wolf Terrorist.” It contended that the difference between a violent criminal and a lone wolf terrorist is that the latter seeks to achieve a political goal. Yet many people want to see political change and don’t hack passers-by on the street.

The news story continued that a Pew Research Poll found that 8% of US Muslims support suicide bombings in certain instances, but the number of terrorist attacks in the US fall far below that percentage. Why?

Researchers at Bryn Mawr College created a psychological profile of lone wolf terrorists. It contends that mass murderers and lone wolves typically have four characteristics:

a grievance at having been injured or persecuted

suffer from depression

“unfreezing,” meaning a loss in relationship or status that leave them unmoored to this world, with little to live for

experience with weapons

Yet the Wall Street Journal effectively walked away from this conclusion in an article on January 22, 2016 called “Can We Stop Homegrown Terrorists.” Other than 93% of the terrorists being male, the author, Peter Bergman, concluded that there was not much of a pattern, and that “in everything but their deadly ideology, they are ordinary Americans…. Every lethal jihadist terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 has been carried out by individuals with no formal connection to foreign terrorist groups. The threat today is so-called lone wolves.”

Bergman discussed analyses completed by the New York Police Department that looked for signs of religious fundamentalism, and another by the FBI, that looked at radicalization, generally, without a tie to religion. Neither approach neatly captured every terrorist attack.

Even without a single comprehensive profile of the “lone wolf terrorist,” law enforcement and community leaders have made many attempts to counter radicalization of people through speeches in mosques and community centers, as well as on social media.

These approaches – to sort-out and identify lone wolf radicals, and attempt to de-radicalize them – are completely absent in the case of Palestinian Arab terrorists attacking Israelis.

Lone Wolf Terrorists in Israel

Palestinian Arabs that kill Israelis are excused by the world and celebrated by Palestinian leadership.

Palestinian terrorists are celebrated by their leaders as “martyrs” with “pure blood.” Streets, parks and soccer tournaments are named after them. Monies flow to the terrorist’s families.

The world excuses their actions with comments such as they were “desperate” and “humiliated.” According to the United Nations, their grievance is with their situation. But that situation cannot be divorced from their anger at Israel. One begets the other. They are not simply desperate for independence, they are desperate to destroy Israel.

As detailed in “Palestinians are “Desperate” for…”if Palestinians were solely desperate for a state, they would have agreed to the various offers made over the years. They wouldn’t stand in objection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, which has no impact on gaining autonomy and independence.

No, the Palestinian Arabs are not segmented into religious and non-religious; radical and non-radicalized when it comes to terrorism. The 93% of Palestinian Arabs that harbor anti-Semitic views, and 67% that favor stabbing random Israeli Jews, make it more akin to finding hay in a haystack, not a needle.

The Wall Street Journal noted that 45 people in the USA have been killed by radical jihadists since 9/11/01, a terrible, but relatively small number of people in a country of 300 million over a decade and a half. That figure compares to dozens of Israelis killed in just the past few months, in a country of 8 million. That is no longer the math of solitary, “depressed” “lone wolves” acting alone, but the essence of millions of wolves inhabiting a small forest.

The Palestinian terrorists are not crazed criminals. As the Wall Street Journal noted, these murderers have a political agenda, and as such, are defined as “terrorists”. These Arabs are still fighting a hundred year battle against other peoples living in the same land.

The world does not attempt to de-radicalize these killers. Instead it excuses their terrorism. It creates agencies to perpetuate the war against Israel. And it admonishes only one party – Israel.

There are millions of wolves roaming Israeli streets. Counting the UN – wolves in sheep’s clothing – there are billions. How does that square with “lone wolf terrorism?”

The Arab population in Jerusalem has not only grown, it has grown faster than the Jewish population in Jerusalem, faster than Arabs around Israel, and faster than Arabs in the surrounding countries.

The annual growth rate in 2011 of Arabs in Jerusalem was 3.2%, higher than Jews who only grew by 2.1%.

Arabs now account for 36% of the population of Jerusalem, up from 26% when the city was reunited in 1967.

From 1967 to 2011, Arabs grew by 5.7 times, while Jews only grew by 3.4 times.

The Arabs of Jerusalem now account for 18% of the Arabs in Israel.

The mortality rate of Arabs in Jerusalem (2.7 per 1000) is lower than Jews (5.2 per 1000).

Jerusalem leads the country in the number of births, and the Arab births account for the same percentage (36%) as in the city. Jews had 27.8 births per 1000 and Arabs had 27.9 births per 1000. Both of those rates are extremely high, and are rates typically found in Africa, not in developed nations.

Arab students make up 38% of the school system in Jerusalem, more than the 36% Arab population.

Arab Women in Jerusalem entering the Western Wall Plaza(photo: First.One.Through)

Muslim Arabs are Similar to Charedi Jews

The demographics of the Muslim Arabs in Jerusalem is very similar to that of the Ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) Jews in Jerusalem. Consider the following:

JERUSALEM

Children (0-14)

Seniors (65+)

Media Age

Charedi Jews

42%

6%

18

Muslim Arabs

40%

3%

20

Rest of Jews

26%

14%

31

Christian Arabs

23%

13%

33

The poverty rate among the Muslim Arabs is also similar to Charedi Jews. Each community tends to have much larger families than the rest of the population (Arabs have 5.7 people per household and Jews have 3.4, but skews much higher in the Charedi community). This typically leads to much poorer living conditions for both groups than the rest of the city.

Approximately 23% of the city considers itself Charedi and 36% Arab. These two groups account for the reason that 51% of all of Jerusalem’s residents are considered to live in the lowest socio-economic category. All of the Arab-majority neighborhoods and 24% of the Jewish neighborhoods (basically the Charedi ones) are ranked the lowest in terms of socio-economics.

Charedi Jews had a 20% lower participation rate (44%) in the workforce than other Jews (65%). Religious Arabs had an even worse workforce participation rate (13%) compared to less religious Arabs (59%), which is more comparable to secular Jews.

In Jerusalem overall, the Arab community is more religious than the Jewish community. Approximately 51% of Jews consider themselves either Charedi (30%) or Observant. This compares to 75% of the Arab population that considers themselves very religious. Both of these figures are much higher than found in other cities in Israel.

As the more religiously fervent have more children and are poor, they live in more crowded living conditions. The average Jewish household in Jerusalem has 1.0 people per room, while the average is much higher at 1.9 Arabs per room in Arab households. Due to this poverty and crowded living conditions, many Arabs take advantage of services from UNRWA: in 2011, the Shuafat Refugee Camp had the biggest gain (+690 people), while the Shuafat neighborhood outside of the UNRWA facility declined by 360 people.

Summary

Religious Arabs in Jerusalem are very similar to Jerusalem’s Charedi population, and they constitute a much larger percentage of the Arab community than the strictly observant Jewish community does in theirs. Both of these groups are growing very rapidly. The size and growth of the families, together with poor workforce participation rates have left both groups in poverty.

The unvarnished reality is that both Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem are caught in a similar trap: religious fervor often leads to poverty and crowded living conditions. Curiously, the satisfaction rate of the quality of life and place of work among Jerusalem residents was higher than elsewhere in Israel, while the frustration over income was highest in Jerusalem. It would appear that both the Arab and Jewish residents of Jerusalem are well aware of the trade-offs in life of being extremely religious.

It is unsurprising that the holy city of Jerusalem attracts many religious people – Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The religiously fervent Jews and Muslims have spurred the city’s population growth (many religious Christians do not marry or have children), and have also increased the city’s poverty levels.

Religious Jews are easy to identify: men by their black hats and black yarmulkes, and women by their dress. Religious Arabs are harder to visually segment, but they are in Jerusalem in much greater proportion than Jews, and account for the rapid growth in the number of Arabs as well as the poorer living standards.

Contrary to the UN reports and Jerusalem “experts” like left-wing radical Danny Seidemann that the New York Times chooses to quote in articles like “Evictions in Walled Old City Stir Up a ‘Hornet’s Nest’“, Arabs in Jerusalem may apply for Israeli citizenship anytime and many do. However, just like the Charedi Jews of Jerusalem, becoming an Israeli citizen is not a ticket out of poverty.

Whether poor or rich, the Arabs in Jerusalem are the fastest growing group of any capital in the Middle East.

For almost its entire existence, Israel has fought to belong at the United Nations. Whether in belonging to a Regional Group (it took until 2004), or the ability to serve at the UN Security Council like every other country, Israel was seemingly a nation that stood apart.

One would therefore imagine, that Israel would welcome the United Nations using inclusive language like “all” when it comes to attacks against Israel’s population.

A review of the select times that the UN leaders use such terminology, reveals that the UN has no such inclusive intent.

A Desire for Recognition

Israelis and decent people around the world expect at least the same amount of concern and consideration that the UN gives to other victims of terror. They want:

To hear that the attacks were acts of “terrorism”;

It to be clear that the victims were innocent;

Acknowledgment that they were attacked for being Jewish;

Blame placed on the perpetrators, the Palestinian Arabs and their leadership for incitement

The United Nations uses such format around the world, and clearly spells out the victims and perpetrators when Israelis attack Palestinian Arabs. However, the UN refuses to do so when Israeli Jews are killed by Palestinian Arabs.

Consider the comments by the UN Media Centre on January 18, 2016 when Palestinian Arabs stabbed two women, killing a mother of six and injuring a pregnant woman, and compare it to the UN comments when three Palestinian Arabs were killed in in arson attack in July 2015.

UN Responses

January 18 Attack on Israeli women

July 31 Attack on Palestinian Arabs

Words in press release

207

433

Victims

“Two women”
(not Israelis)

“Palestinian child” (2x); “Palestinian toddler”; “Palestinian houses”

Comment on Victims

“civilians”
(not innocent)

“Innocent life”

Perpetrator

None
(not Arabs)

“settler violence”;
“Jewish extremists”

The crime

“tragic incidents”Such terminology is not intentional and vicious; it could be used for a traffic accident

“Continued failures to effectively address impunity for repeated acts of settler violence”
“Israel’s illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses”

Perpetrators

“swiftly brought to justice“

“terrorist act/ deplorable act brough to justice” (3x)

UN Concern

“allvictims of violence”

The Palestinians

Funeral of Dafna Meir in Jerusalem,January 18, 2016 (photo: AP)

Why were the “Palestinians” mentioned over-and-again as “innocent” victims targeted in an act of “terrorism”, but the Israelis are merely generic “civilians” caught in amorphous “tragic incidents”? These female victims deserve to be referred to as Israeli Jews, as that was the rationale for the attack (as was the case for Palestinian Arabs). The women deserve more than being lumped in a generic “all,” in the UN’s short paragraph of condemnation on the attacks.

Similarly, the Palestinian Arabs that stabbed these defenseless women do not deserve to be coupled with Israeli extremists. The UN’s use of “extremists on all sides” rings hollow when the same body placed blame solely on “settler violence” and “violent extremists” when “Palestinians” are attacked.

Signpost for Teko’a, where one of the Israeli women was stabbed(photo: First.One.Through)

The UN Considers Israel to be Fundamentally Wrong

The United Nations has endorsed the Palestinian desire for a Jew-free state, and consequently any Jewish deaths are tragic, but justified. Unfortunate, but understood.

Conversely, Palestinian deaths are criminal acts of Jewish extremists, abetted by the government. Jewish terrorism is a natural byproduct of an illegal “occupation.”

For the United Nations, there is only one group that are victims in the “spiral of violence.” The Palestinians.

As such, the perfunctory condemnation for Israelis murdered needed to include the Palestinians in “all victims.” Similarly, the true aggressors in the conflict are the Israelis, so the condemnation was addressed to “extremists on all sides.” The UN wasn’t trying to include Israelis in the victims of terror. It was deliberately omitting them, and placing blame for their demise of the victims themselves and the Israeli government.

Not only was the UN sympathy for the Israeli victims vacuous, the inclusion of Israeli extremists in its statement was insensitive. It is well passed time for the UN to show at least the degree of sensitivity that it offered to Palestinians, as they do with Israelis who were personally and viciously stabbed by Palestinian terrorists.

The radical Islamic terror that demands a pure Islamic caliphate is being fought daily in Israel and its territories, not sporadically in western Europe. Israel is part of the global “all” that is being attacked by radical Islam, not, as the UN portrays, part of the “all” of extreme religious fanatics.

UN text from January 18, 2015: “Strongly condemning the two stabbing attacks on two women, one of them fatal, in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a senior United Nations envoy on the Middle East today called upon Israeli and Palestinian authorities to ensure that the perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice.

“These tragic incidents only highlight the urgent need for all leaders to work together against the spiral of violence and the targeting of civilians,” UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov said in a statement.

“The volatility of the current situation only serves the hate-filled agendas of extremists on all sides. I encourage all parties to promote calm and refrain from inflammatory statements and retaliatory actions,” he added, voicing increasing alarm at the continued attacks in the occupied West Bank taking place almost on a daily basis.

The stabbing attacks took place within the past 24 hours in the settlements of Otniel and Tekoa, resulting in the death of Dafna Meir, a 39-year-old mother of six, and seriously injuring Michal Froman, a pregnant woman in her 30s.

“Nothing justifies the murder of a mother in front of her own children,” Mr. Mladenov said. “My thoughts are with the families and friends of allvictims of violence.”

UN Text from 31 July 2015 – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN special envoy on the Middle East have strongly condemned today’s arson attack in the West Bank that killed a Palestinian child and left the child’s parents severely injured.

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns today’s murder of a Palestinian child in the West Bank and calls for the perpetrators of this terrorist act to be promptly brought to justice,” reads a statement issued by his spokesperson in New York.

Continued failures to effectively address impunity for repeated acts of settler violence have led to another horrific incident involving the death of an innocent life, adds the statement. “This must end.”

The absence of a political process and Israel’s illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses, have given rise to violent extremism on both sides, the statement continues.

“This [situation] presents a further threat to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood, as well as to the security of the people of Israel. The Secretary-General urges both sides to take bold steps to return to the path of peace.”

Mr. Ban reiterates his call on all parties to ensure that tensions do not escalate further, leading to more loss of life, the statement concludes.

Earlier today, the United Nations special envoy on the Middle East today expressed his outrage over what he called a “heinous murder” and a “terrorist crime.”

“I am outraged by today’s vicious arson attack by suspected Jewish extremists in the Occupied West Bank village of Duma, near Nablus, which killed Palestinian toddler Ali, critically injured his mother and father, and injured his four-year old sibling,” the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, said.

Joining in the “strong condemnations” issued by Israeli and Palestinian Governments and political leaders, the Special Coordinator also called for a “full and prompt investigation” to bring the perpetrators to justice.

“This heinous murder was carried out for a political objective. We must not permit such acts to allow hate and violence to bring more personal tragedies and to bury any prospect of peace. This reinforces the need for an immediate resolution of the conflict and an end to the occupation.”

Later today, the Security Council issued a statement to the press, condemning “in the strongest terms” the “vicious terrorist attack,” and underlining the need to bring the perpetrators of this “deplorable act” to justice.

Council members encouraged all sides to work to lower tension, reject violence, avoid all provocations, and seek a path toward peace.”

Native Americans: Native Americans lived in the United States for millennia before Europeans discovered the land. Within a few hundred years, the Europeans overwhelmed the native population and effectively banished them from their lands and homes. To add insult to the injury, the invaders forced new religions onto the remaining tribes.

In the 20th century, Americans began to slowly reverse course and offered more rights to the Native Americans, including American citizenship in 1924. At present, the United States recognizes several hundred Native American tribes and gives them some degree of autonomy in lands of their own.

Jews: Jews have lived in the land of Israel for roughly 3700 years. They had two independent kingdoms in the land and built their holiest Temples there. Roughly 1900 years ago, Romans destroyed the Second Jewish Temple, forced conversion on thousands of Jews, banned Jews from Jerusalem, and renamed their holy land “Palestine”. While some Jews continued to live in the Holy Land, most were dispersed throughout the world.

In the 1800s Jews began to move back to their holy land in greater numbers. While much of the land had been taken over by Arabs who invaded Palestine in the 7th century, the world sought to reconstitute the Jewish homeland as so declared in the the 1922 League of Nations Mandate of Palestine. The British assumed their Mandate of Palestine to encourage Jewish immigration, land ownership and citizenship in Palestine in 1924, the same year that America offered all Native Americans citizenship.

From Slavery

African Americans: While the Europeans came to conquer the New Worlds of North and South America, they brought Africans with them to be their slaves. It took hundreds of years for the United States to abolish the inhuman treatment of African Americans.

Jews: The Jewish people became a nation when they emerged from hundreds of years of slavery in Egypt 3500 years ago. It was only at that time that they received the Bible and entered the promised land.

On January 1, 1863, US President Abraham Lincoln freed the black slaves in America, and just three days later, he abolished the most anti-Semitic decree in US history when he overrode General U.S. Grant’s order to expel the Jews. In one week, Lincoln actively asserted the self-evident rights and dreams in the US Constitution, “that all men are created equal,” including blacks and Jews.

Advancing Minorities’ Interests

Hispanic Americans: Hispanics were always a decent segment of the United States population from the earliest colonies. However, in 1964 and 1965, new laws were passed in the United States which dramatically increased their number and visibility. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination unlawful, and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 ended a quota system from certain countries. With those actions, the number of immigrants coming to the USA from Latin America jumped from 9% to 44% from the 1950s to the 1980s.

Jews: Jews were an unwelcome minority in many countries in the world, and in many parts of the United States. Golf Clubs, universities and private clubs would not admit any Jews – some publicly, and others, privately. The same laws that addressed inequalities for black and Hispanic minorities, also helped Jews in America.

Beyond America’s shores, just a few years after the acts of 1964 and 1965, the Kingdom of Jordan which had evicted and banned every Jew from the area of Palestine it conquered in 1949, attacked Israel again. In so doing, it lost that region of Palestine it had illegally annexed, the “West Bank.” Israel quickly repealed the anti-Semitic bans and welcomed Jews once more.

American Minorities Come to Israel

Minority groups in America “get” the Jewish State of Israel. African-Americans understand a history of slavery and persecution. Native Americans understand being torn from land, culture and religion. Hispanic Americans understand being excluded.

When these groups look at Israel, they instinctively get why the world made some attempt to rectify the long history of expelling and murdering Jews throughout Europe, Russia and northern Africa. They have sought the same kind of consideration themselves.

But even more, when they come to Israel – to the reconstituted Jewish State – they see a success story. They see that the vanquished can be victorious. Where the excluded are now the leaders. Where the defenseless are now a military powerhouse. Where a forgotten language has been reestablished. Where a barren land has become an environmental leader. Where a bankrupt society has become a financial success story.

Minorities that come to Israel see a country where minorities count. Where women account for 24% of the Israeli Knesset, compared to only 16% in the US Congress. Where Arabs represent 14% of the Knesset, versus only 8% black representatives in the US Congress.

Martin Luther King said “Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality.”

Israel is not just a success story for Jews; it is a beacon of hope for minorities around the world.

The two state-solution for the “Question of Palestine” has been bandied about for decades. At the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs seemingly came to a conclusion that there would be a division of the land, one for Arabs and one for Jews. However, when the negotiations reached a critical juncture in September 2000, the head of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat (fungus be upon him), opted to terminate the peace process and launched another war of terrorism against the Jewish State.

Fifteen-plus years and several thousands of dead and injured later, the concept of a two state solution still lingers. While in principle the concept harkens back to the 1947 United Nations Partition plan of two states for two peoples, the radical left has pushed aggressively for a different configuration of two states to the liking of Palestinian Arabs: one and one-half states for Arabs, and one-half of a state for Jews.

The 1.5 Arab States

The 100% Arab State of Palestine. Palestinian Arabs are seeking a new country which will be devoid of any Jews. Acting President of the Palestinian Authority made his demand clear in July 2013. His declaration is consistent with every action taken by Palestinian Arabs over the years:

Palestinian laws which make it a crime for any Arab to sell land to a Jew (consistent with Jordanian law);

Jordanian law specifically excluded Jews from the “West Bank”/ east of the Green Line (EGL) being granted citizenship;

Demand that any and all Jews be removed from EGL (including Jews who live in existing homes that have been around for decades);

Non-Jewish left-wing radicals take note of the Jewish positions. US President Obama has not just called new Israeli towns in EGL “illegitimate,” but argued that no Jews should be permitted to live in EGL, even in homes they legally purchase such as in SIlwan, in eastern Jerusalem. Author Tuvia Tenenbom noted that Europeans and others need not be openly anti-Semitic anymore; they can just fund the rabidly anti-Zionist Jewish groups that bless a Judefrei Palestine.

The 50% Arab State of Israel. Other left-wing groups like Adalah (supported by the New Israel Fund), seek to dismantle the Jewish State and replace it with a bi-cultural state. They advocate for the removal of anything associated with Judaism such as the Jewish symbols on the flag, in front of the Knesset and in the national anthem.

The left-wing groups are also against any Jewish preferences in Israel, such as the Law of Return which enables Jews from around the world to become citizens of Israel on an expedited basis. The revised neutral state of Israel would have Jews living as a minority, as the Palestinian Arab Right of Return would bring millions of Arabs into this bi-cultural state.

In the end, the Holy Land would have a completely Arab, Jew-free state called “Palestine,” and a second democratic, bi-cultural state where Arabs would be a majority, but where Jews would be allowed to live.

150% of the “Holy Basin” for Arabs.
The non-holy 50% for Jews

The 1.5 Arab states in the holy land would also have 150% of the “Holy Basin,” and all of the region’s holy sites.

When the United Nations first drafted a partition plan in 1947, it considered the two holy cities – Jerusalem and Bethlehem – to be a “Holy Basin” which would be part of neither state. As the left-wing now pushes for the 150% Arab plan, they are advancing a radical plan for the Holy Basin.

100% of Bethlehem. As part of the Oslo Accords, Israel handed over control of the City of Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority at the end of 1995. Israel only maintains a small presence at Judaism’s third holiest site, the Tomb of Rachel. After Arafat’s Second Intifada, the Israelis were forced to create a wall around the small tomb to protect Jewish visitors. In general, the city is now virtually devoid of Jews and Christians since coming under the Palestinian Authority.

The Holy 50% of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority demands that the entirety of the Old City of Jerusalem, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites, Islam’s third holiest site, and many Christian holy sites, all be part of the Palestinian capital. It is content to let the newer part of the city to the west, which has no holy sites, to be the capital of Israel.

The radical left endorses the Palestinian Arab plan.

The fact that only Israel has allowed freedoms of access and religion in Jerusalem does not sway people who claim to seek “justice.” Groups which claim to advance “human rights,” advocate for an anti-Semitic Jew-free agenda in Palestine. Further, using the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, these groups consider anyone that points out the bias of their plan and impracticality of diving a capital city to be right-wing racists.

The joys of being a radical liberal is that you can feel 150% morally superior while waving banners of “justice” and “human rights”, even while trampling on those very principles.

Zionism started before the First Zionist Congress in 1897 and before Theodore Herzl wrote “The Jewish State” in 1896. However, the core elements of Zionism that people recognize came from the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Those key elements found their way into the 1920 San Remo Conference and ultimately, the 1922 League of Nation’s Palestine Mandate. Those key points are:

Jewish History in the Holy Land: “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine”

Reestablishing the Jewish homeland: “recognition… to the grounds for reconstituting their [Jewish] national home in that country [Palestine]”

Owning land: “shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”

Citizenship: “facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine”

Freedom of worship and religion: “securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship…. complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.“

Each of these principles is under attack.

History

Palestinian Arabs did not always doubt the history of Jews in the Holy Land. In the 1920s, the official guidebook of “Al Haram al Sharif” published by the Supreme Moslem Council, stated that the Temple Mount’s “identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute” (page 4). Yet today, the entire history of Jews in the Holy Land is challenged by Palestinian Arab extremists (and “moderates”).

Acting President of Palestinian Authority (PA) Mahmoud Abbas addressed the United Nations General Assembly several times. In those speeches he spoke of the history of Jesus and Mohammed in the Holy Land, but ignored the history of the Jews in the land including: Jacob; Joseph; Joshua; David; and Solomon.

Various leaders of the PA have declared that: there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; if there was a Temple it wasn’t on the Temple Mount; and Israel is manufacturing ancient artifacts to fabricate a Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

Abbas claimed that Israel has attempted to “Judaize” Jerusalem, including claiming that the Western Wall is actually Islamic and known as the al-Buraq wall.

Abbas claimed that Jesus was a Palestinian, rather than a Jew. His comments have continued to be repeated by PA officials and television.

Arab states are so upset about the history of Jews in the Holy Land, that 22 Arab states pressured UNESCO to cancel an exhibit called “People, Book, Land — The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land”

Inscription dating to 840 BCE in Tel Dan, northern Israel
referring to the “House of David”

Recently, some politicians outside of Israel have finally begun to push back on the Arab narrative that denies Jewish history. US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), remarked in December 2015 that “denying the historic connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem is false. Amazing archeological discoveries are frequently made that prove the roots of the Jewish people are in Israel.”

Seal of King Hezekiah found in Jerusalem, around 700 BCE

Arabs came to the Holy Land during the Islamic invasion of the 7th centuries. An Arab claim to being indigenous to Israel is like the Portuguese claiming to be indigenous to Brazil because they have been there for hundreds of years. There were people who lived there for thousands of years before the new people invaded, and continue to live there and claim the place as their home.

RECONSTITUTING The Jewish Homeland

The Arabs hope that by denying the history of Jews in the Holy Land, they can claim that they are the indigenous people of the land, and Jews are simply European colonialists. The claim that Israel is a new colonial force is repeated often by Palestinians and plays well to Europeans that have rethought their own colonial past.

Jews have lived in the Holy Land for over 3,700 years and were the only people to have independent political governments in the land. They are also the only people to have their religious holiest sites in the land.

It is not a coincidence that Arabs shout to “Free Palestine” as opposed to “Create Palestine” as a new independent country. The Arabs claim that the land was never home to Jewish Kingdoms and has always been Arab land.

The Prism of Sennacherib, from roughly 689 BCE describing his attack on
the Jewish King Hezekiah in Jerusalem, as mentioned in 2 Kings: 18:13

Immigration

Arabs sought to deny Jewish immigration to Palestine immediately after the San Remo Conference. Several Arab riots broke out in the 1920s, and in the 1930s the Arabs were able to convince the British to curtail Jewish immigration. In 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust in Europe, the British issued the White Paper which capped Jewish immigration at 75,000 people for five years. The goal was to keep Jews as a permanent minority in Palestine.

Arabs and left-wing Israeli radicals continue to call on limiting Jewish immigration to Israel. In December 2015, Haaretz columnist Amira Hess said at a conference run with the New Israel Fund that Jewish “immigration to Israel under today’s circumstances — especially on the part of citizens of free Western countries — constitutes complicity in the crime.”

Owning Land

The British and Arabs reduced the amount of land available for Jews to settle since the time that the Mandate took effect in 1922.

By 1928, the area now known as Jordan, was split from Palestine.

In 1929, after Arabs massacred Jews in Hebron, the British evacuated all of the remaining Jews from the city

In 1940, British drafted the Land Transfer Regulations which limited where Jews could purchase land to only one-third of the remaining part of Palestine

In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into Arab and Jewish States

In 1949, after five Arab armies attacked Israel at its founding, Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria and evicted all Jews from the territory, including the eastern part of Jerusalem, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention

In 1967, after Jordan (and Palestinians who were then Jordanian citizens) attacked Israel and lost the area that they had termed the “West Bank,” they still fought to keep Jews from living in the land

The Jordanians had a Land Law in effect in the West Bank that prohibited the sale of any land to Jews from 1949 to 1967, punishable by death. In 1997 – AFTER the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian Authority and Israel – the Palestinians confirmed that such land sales to Jews would be considered treason and a capital offense.

Radicalleft-wing activist Ezra Nawi blew whistle on Arabs selling land to Jewswas arrested by Israel in January 2016

Citizenship

When the British left Palestine in 1948, Israel gave citizenship to everyone in Israel – Jews and non-Jews alike. However, after the Arabs attacked Israel and Jordan assumed control of the West Bank, Jordan only granted citizenship only to Arabs. The 1954 Jordanian law extending citizenship to Palestinian Arabs spelled out that Jews were excluded: “Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954.”

Arab groups like Adalah and left-wing groups like the New Israel Fund (NIF) complain today about Israel’s Law of Return that allows Jews to become citizens of Israel on an expedited manner, a Law that non-Jews cannot use, claiming that such law is discriminatory. The groups fail to note that Israel institutes a Law of Return in the same manner that dozens of other countries use such a law to enable people with a lineage to the country to become citizens quickly. The Jewish people have ties to the prior Jewish kingdoms in the Holy Land, while the Arabs, many of whom arrived over the past century, but certainly not before the 7th century, have no such ties.

When you see an advertisement about “social justice” and “equality” from groups like the NIF, they are attacking these fundamental principles of Zionism and common international laws.

Freedom of Worship

When the League of Nations endorsed the principles of Zionism, they also sought to ensure equality and fairness for the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants throughout the region. One of the areas that they highlighted was the access to each religion’s holy places. In theory.

Jews were banned from visiting or worshipping on the Temple Mount back in the 1550s under Suleiman I. The Ottoman Muslim leader enabled Jews to pray at the Western Wall, or the Kotel, but denied them their historical access to their holiest place. Moslems similarly forbade Jews from visiting their second holiest place, the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron.

When Israel took control of the post-1929 Palestine Mandate land in 1967, they sought to reestablish Jewish rights at the holiest Jewish places – just as called for in international law endorsing Zionism.

As detailed in “The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land,” Israel attempted to assert Jewish rights at their holiest places including: The Temple Mount; the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs; Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem/Nablus. It has been a struggle.

It is understood that the Arabs would argue strongly for their own cause. They have pursued an Arab and Muslim maximalist approach to the Holy Land for centuries.

However, the United Nations has backtracked significantly from its early endorsement of Zionism. Under British administration, immigration was cut and the ability to own land was diminished. When it came to vote at the United Nations to admit Israel as a new country, to “reconstitute the Jewish homeland,” Britain abstained.

The United Nations learned from Britain, and has continued to squeeze Zionism, such as recanting on the principle that Jews should have the freedom to worship at their holiest places, as discussed above.

While the UN constricted Zionism, it expanded the cause of Palestinian Arabs:

it created a new definition of “refugee” which included someone that left a house and town, rather than a country

It uniquely extended the definition of “refugees” to descendants, where the UN now considers there to be over 11 million Palestinians

The UN created a stand-alone refugee agency for Palestinian Arab “refugees” (UNRWA) that live in the surrounding area to the Holy Land, giving services to over 5 million people. Every other refugee in the world gets a single under-funded agency

UNRWA has promoted a narrative that all 5 million “refugees” will get to move to Israel, even though they are neither refugees nor have any right to move to Israel under the country’s Law of return

The UN altered its mission for refugees to one of protection and settlement (as it does throughout the world), to one that seeks to undermine Zionism

In 1975, the UN General Assembly endorsed Resolution 3379 stating that “Zionism is Racism,” essentially nullifying on the basic arguments and rights of Jews to their homeland. The effort to limit Zionism had become an effort to terminate it.

Summary

The “Zionism is racism” declaration was ultimately overturned in 1991, in part, because of the efforts of the United States. As US President George Bush argued before the UN: “Zionism is not a policy, it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of the Jews in World War II, and indeed throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism, is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations. This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to exist.”

Zionism has been getting squeezed since 1917, in rights, size and scope. As Zionism has been squeezed, so has the State of Israel itself.

The “Freedom CHOIR (Freedom of worship and religion; Citizenship; History; Owning land; Immigration; and Reconstituting the Jewish State)” which are fundamental building blocks of Zionism, are under attack. The Arabs have intensified their assault to include basic facts of Jewish history. The British and United Nations have constricted Zionism in size and scope. Left-wing radical groups have now joined the chorus using “progressive” language of “justice” and “equality,” while using the identical arguments of racists that seek to reject Israel.

Review the points of the Freedom CHOIR. Do you believe in Zionism? Will you join the CHOIR or seek to silence it?

President Barack Obama gave his final State of the Union address on January 12, 2016. He gave an outline of a speech in four parts: economic opportunity; technology; a safe America; and politics, as he projected a future world ten-plus years out.

Safe America: Regarding a safe America, Obama continued to limit his global enemies to two parties: al Qaeda and ISIL/ Islamic State. Other countries that shout “Death to America! Death to Israel” like Iran were not labeled enemies that threaten the USA. Obama mentioned Iran just a single time, when he extolled the “principled diplomacy” that “avoided another war.” That may have been true in 2015. But the future in ten-plus years that he facilitated, is a nuclear weapons-armed Iran.

A fanatical, anti-Semitic, America-bashing country with weapons of mass destruction is not a recipe to “keep America safe.” Unless, of course, Obama has banked on Iran limiting its attack only against Israel, as he doubts that Iran would consider attacking the “most powerful nation on Earth.”

Politics of religions: When Obama delved into politics, he not-so-subtly put Donald Trump in his crosshairs as he said “When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.”

Obama berated Trump for his comments about Muslims in the past. This time, he extended his comments passed the politics of Trump, to anti-Muslim actions in the United States generally. While he repeated prior statements that anti-Muslim actions betray the values of the United States, he added the dimension that Islamophobia “diminishes us in the eyes of the world.” The two additions are noteworthy.

As detailed in “Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism” an average American Jew is over TWICE as likely to be attacked as either a Muslim or black American. Yet anti-Semitism is never flagged by Obama. That is actually too kind. Anti-Semitic attacks are often whitewashed by the Obama administration, such as his denial that Jews were targeted in Paris in January 2015.

Obama’s SOTU remarks add some color to his blindness. He is concerned that Islamophobia “diminishes us in the eyes of the world.” Not so anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism has a long history in the world. Over the past eighteen months it has reared it’s ugly head again in Europe. It is pervasive in the Middle East. As such, flagging anti-Semitism may diminish America’s standing in the world.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and only 16 million Jews, a 100:1 ratio. Islamophobia upsets at least 1.6 billion people and few seem to notice or care about the more prevalent anti-Semitism. So Obama omitted discussing anti-Semitism and only highlighted the less common attacks on Muslims.

In his seventh year as president of the United States, Obama finally made his views on anti-Semitism a little more clear: Jews and Israel are small sacrifices to ensure a safer America.

On January 12, 2016, The New York Times ran a cover story entitled “Balancing Terror and Reality in the State of the Union Address.” The article conveyed that President Obama will address the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests, even though such threats are actuality relatively minor. As Americans are nervous due to all of the terrorism they see in the world, Obama will discuss an issue he would rather minimize. As such, the guests that will accompany the First Lady to the speech include several people from the military, veterans and a police officer.

The long list of defense personnel guests masks the message of compassion in a veneer of strength. As the White House press release said, “the [invited] guests personify President Obama’s time in office and most importantly, they represent who we are as Americans: inclusive and compassionate, innovative and courageous.” Most of the military guests will be props for Obama to discuss: the fight against homelessness; women’s rights; Islam is a religion of peace; and monitoring the police force.

Obama’s message is that while there is a fight against terrorism, it is a secondary concern. The seven years of his administration were not primarily about keeping the country safe, but moving forward on a progressive agenda.

For example, another guest at the SOTU address was the lead plaintiff for the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, Jim Obergefell. He described his fight for equality as “liv[ing] up to the promises to love, honor and protect each other.” The case was decided by the Supreme Court, not the executive branch, but it symbolized a step forward in “inclusiveness and compassion.”

The year 2015 also had lowlights on these exact points of inclusion, compassion and protection.

Protecting Children from Terrorism

On 9/11/2001, 2,753 people in New York City were murdered in acts of terrorism. Over the next fourteen years, the city had numerous failed terrorist attempts (such as the Times Square bomber) which also included “softer” targets. The city therefore placed more security around public schools to protect children.

The largest Jewish population in America is in New York City and the surrounding counties. That religious community suffers from the most persecution, where 57% of all anti-religious crimes were against Jews. As Jewish schools and synagogues were also targeted by terrorists, New York City advanced a bill to provide security to religious private schools.

Leading activists and politicians in the LGBT community were appalled.

LGBT Hate for the Bible and
Children that Learn the Bible

Rosie Mendez, a Manhattan Democrat, lobbied aggressively against providing security guards for Jewish children at private schools. She said: “As a member of the LGBT community, I know that a lot of these schools discriminate against us and if the city is going to provide any kind of funding, the schools should not be discriminatory.”

New York Councilmember Daniel Drommof Jackson Heights said together with Mendez that “often their [Jewish] leaders embrace homophobia, transphobia, and other horrific ideologies, and subject our young people to them on a daily basis in the classroom. It is our duty to protect LGBTQ students in every school. We must not bankroll hate with tax dollars.”

Council Members Danny Dromm and Rosie Mendez (photo: Donna Aceto)

In other words, because the Bible says that male homosexual acts are a sin, and the religious schools teach the Bible, these politicians do not want children in religious schools to be afforded the same police protection that children in public schools receive. Whether the topic of homosexual sex ever comes up in school is irrelevant (the Bible is thousands of pages long and the prohibition against gay sex is a single sentence- do the schools really “subject our young people to [anti-gay rhetoric] on a daily basis?”). The Bible also prohibits eating pig. Should everyone who eats bacon argue that police should not protect any children in a school that teaches the Bible, since they are offended by the Bible’s contents?

What does protecting children from potential terrorism have to do with a school’s curriculum? Would these councilmembers be comfortable if these young children were murdered?

The statements are thinly veiled masks for anti-Semitism.

Dromm and Mendez weren’t alone in attempting to block police protection for religious schools because of their distaste for the Bible.

Allen Roskoff, president of the LGBT Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, was strongly opposed to funding police for religious private schools, saying “religious institutions pushing this bill have a long history and present-day reality of discriminating against the gay community. Why should they be able to discriminate on our dime?”

Note that the bill was not “special treatment” for the religious schools, but one that was drafted to give private school students the same police protection that are given to public school students.

LGBT Hate of “Jewish Money”

Rosie Mendez continued to spew anti-Semitic hatred. She accused New York City Mayor Bill Di Blasio of caving to the security request because “he’s trying to acquiesce to the lobbyists, to the religious community that has been looking for money for their private schools.” She invoked an old anti-Semitic canard that Jews don’t even care about children’s safety- they’re only out for the money.

While Obama reluctantly addresses terrorism during his State of the Union address, he must remember that protecting the people of the United States is the primary responsibility of the government. Not only is freedom of speech and religion protected in the First Amendment, but the physical protection of every individual underscores the entire reason for having governmental institutions.

When Obama joins the LGBT community to celebrate achieving equal rights, they must all remember that inclusion, compassion and protection extends to every single citizen – even Jewish children that learn the Bible.